Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   No consensus to delete. The Delete arguments focused on the poor sourcing of the article. As discussed in WP:MEDRS, journal articles reporting the results of the authors' own research are primary sources, no matter how reputable the journal is. News coverage is generally dubious for sourcing medical and scientific claims. However, as an argument for deletion this is weak, because the primary issue at AFD is not whether the claims made in the research are true or even coherent, it is whether they are notable. As pointed out in some of the Keep comments, we have articles on blatant pseudoscience and long-rejected historical theories. The journal articles on the studies themselves do not establish notability, but news coverage and subsequent journal citations certainly can, even if the underlying claims are bunk. So while the Delete position clearly has the greater numbers here, their arguments are lacking.

The Keep response was to focus on the number of sources, especially the number of different studies cited, and to question the relevants of WP:MEDRS to this article, which is more about cognitive science than medicine. This is also a bit weak, since the point that research articles of this type are primary sources is true generally, not just for medicine. So the number of studies referenced is not germane to notability. The news coverage and subsequent citation of some of the studies is, however, especially if the coverage is repeated over time and not just a single flurry of coverage. Early versions may have been subject to WP:NOTNEWS or even WP:COATRACK arguments for deletion, but the subsequent addition of coverage related to multiple studies closed off those arguments. An argument based on WP:SYNTH might apply given the seeming lack of sources to relate the different studies to a single topic, but that wasn't the reasoning endorsed by most of the Delete comments. So while they are clearly the minority, the Keep side has effectively countered the arguments offered for deletion, although not so strongly that I would be comfortable with a minority "Keep" close.

On a personal note, I suspect the best result would come by starting over from scratch on a Neuroscience and political preferences article, because my guess is that the sources exist to write a much better article than this poorly-written melange of primary sources and news coverage. But there isn't a consensus for that at the moment, so hopefully editors can make the best of what's there. At the very least I would encourage moving the article to a better name and finding some non-news secondary sources. --RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Differences between conservative and liberal brain‎
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails to meet MEDRS: all cites are news articles referring to the single medical study which has not been referenced in tertiary medical science reviews. The article may in future (after other scientific studies, and the tertiary summary of the aforementioned) be valid, at the moment, it isn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: See The study is covered by major news agencies and maninstream newspapers. And please see these links: 1. study published in Nature Neuroscience by New York University and UCLA scientists in 2007, 2. online survey by psychologists in 2009 , 3. study in New Scientist in 2008  So we now have multiple studies. It is not "the study", it is "the studies". Given the sources, it meets WP:N. --Brain Researcher (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Creator of the article JFW &#124; T@lk  19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Article on this topic published in prestigious journal Nature Neuroscience. David M Amodio, John T Jost, Sarah L Master & Cindy M Yee, Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism, Nature Neuroscience. --Brain Researcher (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * mild keep This seems to be an interesting and ongoing area of research.  I see no reason to rush to delete. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "interesting" is a reason for keeping. Guoguo12  --Talk--  03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Now based on all of TWO small studies, neither one of which has been mentioned much outside original publication at all.  Less worthwhile than the ones on "race and intelligence" to be sure.    As the studies have not been referred, they do not meet notability standards for articles on medical studies.  Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals    Initial publication of a small study does not meet that standard.  Nor does coverage in a tabloid apply.  Nor does a study on typing appear to be related to "brain differences" as claimed.   "It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions,"   seems also dispositive that the researchers did not intend for this sort of article to be produced from a small sample.   Then I checked every article by Kanai on Google Scholar to see if anyone ever referenced this study.   Cited nowhere.  I suggest that a study which is cited nowhere is a minor study, falling short, on its face, of the requirements for medical articles. Collect (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You checked all 135 of Ryota Kanai's articles cited on Google Scholar? If you know the title of his study, please share. Anarchangel (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at 14 pages (emend - about 25+ pages)   - finding none cited which remotely sounded like the study presumably cited.   Not unusual for small studies which get National Enquirer mention not to get mentioned in any secondary sources per MEDRS.  I suspect the sensationalism attached to such a small study far outweighs its importance to other researchers. Collect (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For years, I had given up hope of actually catching you lying. It's almost sad in a way, the end of an era. "Then I checked every article by Kanai on Google Scholar" is proven false by "I looked at 14 pages". Furthermore, your reasoning, your vote, and the votes of those that followed your lie posing as a sourced rationale, all fail WP:DEL #6 "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". 90% of the Google Scholar results say you have more work to do before making such a statement. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All this is your attempt to attack me? OK -- here goes ...  nope.   nope.  267 to go.   nope.     nope.  nope.  (have to make sure they are all R Kanai)    ? Nope.   Going once again through every single item found - no match.   As for deciding to make a truly silly attack -- it is shown for what it is. A truly silly attack.  Collect (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)     Anent your "proven false" - this time I looked at 27 pages.   Google Scholar lists 10 items per page.   I trust everyone else can figure that one out. Collect (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The 135 was with using quote marks in the search - the 14 pages was in fact correct. Sans quote marks gets the higher figure.   Again -- with 10 entries per page, the math does check out.  Collect (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every search for "Ryota Kanai" with quotes will always yield close to 135 results. Without quotes yields 269 results. There is no way to square that with 14. The other study is called "Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism, (David M Amodio, John T Jost, Sarah L Master & Cindy M Yee. 9 September 2010, Nature Neuroscience). It was cited by 69 other studies. It was reported in the LA Times Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain (Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times), I have not bothered checking how many news sources covered it. Anarchangel (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And where is Kanai listed as an author of the source you blithely give?   I rather think you owe me an apology on this one quickly! Collect (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arithmetic lesson: 14 pages = 131 to 140 results on Google Scholar.  Each PAGE has up to 10 ITEMS on it.  10 items per page times 14 pages = 131 to 140 total entries. Collect (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake, mistaking pages for entries. You assert untruths even when they have been disproven, but I cannot support an argument that you lied anymore. Anarchangel (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet elsewhere you still repeat the claim. As I said before and since, Google Scholar showed no other places citing for the article.  It sill didn't as of the last time I checked either.   And saying I "support untruths" is a gross violation of WP:NPA just as all of your comments about "prevarication" have been.  As a matter of fact, I would ask anyone closing this to note the extent to which you use this discussion as a platform to attack me personally and repeatedly.   And I would suggest they then discount your position as being far more based on personal animus than on any valid WP policy or guideline grounds.  I do not chase you, hunting for places to make such claims, and I suggest that where you admitted that as a goal here, that your position on this is grossly untenable. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV trojan horse, at a minimum. Race and intelligence has been a gargantuan time drain for dozens of people, do we want another one — especially one about a fundamentally non-notable topic parsing TWO, count them TWO studies? Yikes. Kill this one with a wooden stake to the heart and burn the corpse. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is NPOV atm, and shows no signs of becoming so; a matter for the editors on the page in any case. I see your name at AfD a lot, Carrite, you should know better than that. There are five studies in the article atm. No such thing as 'Fundamentally non-notable'. Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. At this stage, this looks like a fringe theory that, as Carrite says, seems to have been contrived for the sake of controversy. Unlike some fringe theories, this one seems at least halfway plausible.  Question: do we have an article on dúchas, inheritance of personality traits, or biological basis of personality traits?  This study might be worth a mention in any such article, but I don't see the underlying hypothesis as notable enough to merit a stand alone article yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposition to the hypotheses is shown in the article, composed of the introduction to one treatise. Hardly a rejection by the scientific community. Therefore it is not FRINGE. Your rest is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. See WP:ININ. Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or merge if a suitable place can be found - The studies have been picked up by some major news organizations, so there is a fair amount of coverage (that explains the weak part of my !vote), but IMO two studies that have not been the subject of review articles don't quite make a robust scientific theory suitable for its own Wikipedia article. I'm not familiar with most aspects of psychology, but is there a suitable article into which some of this material could be merged?  P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I've reconsidered in light of improvements made. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Race and intelligence is the closest. Collect (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Behavioural genetics strikes me as an even closer fit, and that article could stand quite a bit of expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should mention that in this case a couple of sentences or a short paragraph is all that would need to be merged. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Weakly sourced, as mentioned above, and a fundamentally POV-based topic until there is significant independent coverage. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 28 sources, the very least of which I would say is the Toronto Star. Scientific studies cannot be PoV under the scrutiny of peer review. Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:COATRACK problems for people wishing to spread points of view about political opponents, coupled with the fact that this study's siginificance doesn't extend beyond the news cycle that caught it. This is the case of newspapers picking up an interesting story with a catchy title, but there's no evidence of lasting notability here.  This is no more significant than what happens when newspapers pick up a story on a skateboarding dog or anything else like that.  When this becomes significant in the scientific literature, then we may have something.  But right now there's not enough here to create a quality article from.  -- Jayron  32  17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just a news story. 69 scientific articles used facts garnered by the first study to use as a basis for their own. Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a coatrack - actually, the focus of the article is rather too narrow. For example, I had to omit adding a (very) small study about anarchists and moderates because it says "conservative and liberal". Wnt (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV nonsense labelling persons of Conservative political orientation as products of fear.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the secondary coverage of the two scientific studies in numerous mainstream news media such as Time magazine. The question of a biological basis for political style has demonstrated notability, but the two studies are a rather slight basis for making it an established scientific fact. As noted above, if there is no consensus to keep, then a paragraph could be added to Behavioural genetics. This does not belong in Race and intelligence unless someone can prove that either liberals or conservatives are more intelligent. Does not seem at all to be nonsense. Edison (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of study will always make it into the popular press because of its whackiness, but none of this signifies a major trend in neuroscience and the data needs confirmation. (It sounds like something out of Michael Crichton's NEXT!) JFW &#124; T@lk  19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Small studies such as those that support this article simply aren't notable in terms of their scientific significance. They get gleeful attention and over-interpretation from narrow-minded people that want to use them for fodder to support partisan political battles, but this topic has no real notability.  Peacock (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added some material about two older studies showing a link between IQ and intelligence which was "gleefully" deleted (within 3-5 minutes each time) when I tried to add it to other articles. The topic is notable and important, with many reliable sources; unfortunately there are people who just don't like it and expect to get their way no matter what the notability may be.  Note that if you say "this will be like race and intelligence", that's just a formal way of hoisting up the white flag and saying that's alright with you. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, within two hours after I added my information, Fifelfoo deleted the whole section about IQ, claiming it was beyond the scope of the article. I'll reproduce the deleted section here (since I doubt you'll see it anywhere else, ever):
 * "According to the ASA, IQ data from the "Add Health" survey averaged 106 for adolescents identifying as "very liberal", versus 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative".      An unrelated study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. However, a 1946 study of 6000 persons found that those more informed on current political issues had more years of formal education and were "more liberal in issues regarding Russia and atom-bomb control, but more conservative in their views regarding power for the workers and government guarantees." "''
 * I suspect most reasonable people think the IQ is a measure of brain function, and I do not believe it is appropriate to propose an article for deletion because it is based on a "single study", then remove additional studies from the article! Wnt (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your text needs to indicate that link and the link needs to emerge from the study itself. If the ASA used IQ as a proxy for brain activity, then go ahead.  However, and as you would know, IQ has regularly been criticised as a measure of cultural norms rather than fundamental "quotients" of raw "intelligence".  If the ASA used IQ to proxy fundamentally physiological intelligence, then fine.  And the text in the article needs to indicate that link.  You can't simply coatrack material in unless the material itself relates its findings to the brain. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources I use say "intelligent people". They do not suggest that the difference in scores is due to "cultural norms".  Liberals and conservatives come from the same country, the same socioeconomic groups; the idea seems absurd.  But I won't try to prove that because it would be original research.  And sooner or later Wikipedia needs to recognize that it is wrong to remove information based on original research. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, the article name itself asserts the existence of a difference that is not proven to be a widely excepted phenomenon. Elocute (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an article on young Earth creationism - your criterion is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be proved, just verifiable.  And I've tossed in lots more references about this sort of thing since I voted Keep above. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would claim that that articles name is not misleading, whereas this ones is. I regret that your response is to proclaim my input irrelevant, but I would have to disagree.


 * Delete Only based on primary sources, and passing media attention - no indication of any real recognition as science (e.g. citation, follow-up studies etc). Maybe this will come, but until then, we don't need to cover it, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. (though I must admit I like the idea that Conservatism causes the useful parts of your brain to shrink ;) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage in scientific journals is not primary. The newspaper coverage is indepth. Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a strange understanding of the term "primary sources". Terminal emulator (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Do any of the arguments originate from the amygdala region of the brain? Edison (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons well-articulated by Collect. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasoning claiming a search of 135 references which did not find the Ryota Kanai study already in the article, or the repeated ignoring of the study which has 69 references? Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a topic on which a bunch of research has been done and continues to be done. We shouldn't delete it just because it feels politically incorrect. It would be like deleting the Race and intelligence article. We also shouldn't delete it just because existing research hasn't shown strong differences. That's a classic example of biasing against studies that support the null hypothesis. If the topic is interesting enough to be getting research grants to study it, then the results of those studies should be interesting enough for Wikipedia. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  16:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added another study, which I believe was originally published in Nature, although I couldn't confirm this (see article talk). This was covered heavily by secondary sources, which the article now cites. It also echos my assertion above: if the topic is interesting enough that researchers are getting grants for it and it's being published in Nature, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  17:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article now much improved and extensively referenced; original reasons for nomination no longer apply. An excellent example of how AfD triggers article improvement. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, and now well-sourced and IMO NPOV. (And POV is not by itself a ground for deletion). --Lambiam 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The trouble with this topic is the facile way in which liberal/conservative seems to be determined. For example, see The Political Brain.  In this we see that the brains of Alan Duncan and Stephen Pound have been analysed.  But who is the conservative and who the liberal?  Alan Duncan is a Conservative Party politician but is openly homosexual and liberal on social issues.  Stephen Pound is a Labour Party politician but seems more traditional in his views, being a former boxer and bus conductor.  And then there's the study of the brains of London taxi drivers, who are notorious for their reactionary views.   What's needed is a more general article about brain structure and personality, which would raise the topic about the level of petty politics, but I'm not seeing anything close to that.  The current version seems contrary to our policy which excludes partisan politics - WP:SOAP.  And because terms like liberal are so ill-defined, there's too much difficulty with WP:V and WP:SYN. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SOAP prohibits propaganda. Whether an article discusses politics or footwear is irrelevant to SOAP, only how it is discussed. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that "liberal" and "conservative" categories are too vague to to be used in studies is your own opinion/OR, and is not upheld by the dozens of peer-reviewed published articles that have used the two categories in their research. The following examples found within the first 15 results of a Google Scholar search of "liberal conservative":        &mdash; Asbestos |  Talk   (RFC)  23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, this is really something you need to take up with the scientific community (e.g. by submitting a paper to a relevant journal explaining that research like this is flawed for reasons X, Y and Z). It is not for Wikipedia to make independent judgements on the validity of peer-reviewed scientific research. Terminal emulator (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The AfD process needs to recognize that deleting material based on original research is also against policy.  The researchers and a dozen news outlets (including the one above, which the article hasn't referenced yet) all accept that there is such a thing as liberal and conservative.  I think it is possible to define them on surveys.  There is overlap and uncertainty, but probably less than between, say, heterosexual and homosexual.  I don't say, and the article doesn't say, that this categorization is "real" in some absolute sense - actually, one of the studies cited in it, which you would lose if it is deleted, makes an argument that from the brain scans they defined three major variables: individualism, conservatism, and radicalism.  (However, see )  Wikipedia's role is not to decide what's true, then allow construction of articles about the "truth" - it is simply to see what is out there and verifiably sourced, and get it covered. Wnt (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep notable topic, excellent sourced information available, not just the articles, but the summaries in news sources. It would be a good idea to find a somewhat more neutral topic that makes it clearer that this is still a hypothesis with some evidence, not soundly established science. that somework on this subject may not be of any quality does not mean that none of it is.  Nor do anecdotaly based differences of opinion by Wikipedia contributors represent anything than their own SYN.    DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This topic seems similar to studies of the "gay brain", which also point to the amygdala but it seems that gay brain and gay brain development are both red links. Did we have articles on this which were deleted or what?  I'm also reminded of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, whereby dissidents were considered certifiably insane.  That is a substantial article and its treatment may be instructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have Neuroscience and sexual orientation, however - an interesting article. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Colonel Warden and the nominator. The article is actually a list of some unrelated, individual small studies that do not have any scientific significance and are not used in other scientific papers. The result of the studies are not established fact and there is no indication that these have acceptance among the scientific community. Coverage in popular press is not enough to keep an article under Category:Cognitive neuroscience if we are going to build an encyclopedia. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Reference Desker: contributing since February 2011, mostly on Wikipedia Categories. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Asbestos. I'd also urge those who said "delete" to pause and think: are you really saying that this topic cannot be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia? Because if you're not, you should be saying "merge" (even if you don't know where to, as off hand I don't). Rd232 talk 00:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. I said that looking at the Google Scholar showed no sign that the study met MEDRS by a mile. Note further the inane attack saying that a person who looks at 14 pages of Google Scholar results is "lying" because there were 135 results .     If a study is not reviewed by others in any secondary medical source (pro or con) there is no reason to keep it as an article - else we could have quite a few thousand medical articles added each year, contrary to the MEDRS standards.   We have policies and guidelines saying this sort of article does not belong on WP, let us follow them.   Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. seems quite sufficient here. Collect (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I think WP:MEDRS is a bad guideline, though it would make a good essay. 2) This is not subject to WP:MEDRS. This is not a biomedical article, as nothing in it is intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease except perhaps, quite indirectly, the Ryan budget travesty . Wnt (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You lied. And then you obfuscated. And you repeatedly make assertions in opposition to the facts.
 * First you said "Then I checked every article by Kanai on Google Scholar to see if anyone ever referenced this study.  Cited nowhere." Saying "I checked every article" was a sort of lie in itself, as there are 135. But not conclusive. You have consistently shown yourself to be an obfuscator in this same fashion, and capable of actions that can only be explained as "negligence or something else", but because negligence could always be invoked instead, I could never prove lying conclusively.
 * Then you said "I looked at 14 pages". That clinches it. There is no way to reconcile 135 pages and "every article" with "14 pages" . It is rare to catch someone in a lie by their own admission; the only way, really, to prove a full on lie. This is a very big problem on Wikipedia, especially with the AGF rule breathing down our necks. But thank the stars, I have finally nailed it. There is no way out of this one.
 * Then you changed your comment to read "25 pages"
 * None of which comes anywhere near the full count of 135 articles, with quotes, for "Ryota Kanai".
 * Then you obfuscated, with these sentences, which are internally inconsistent, following a truth-lies-truth-lies pattern. "The 135 was with using quote marks in the search - the 14 pages was in fact correct. Sans quote marks gets the higher figure.   Again -- with 10 entries per page, the math does check out." Yes, 135 is with quotes. Therefore, 14 pages cannot be correct. Yes, without quote marks get a higher figure. But no one had yet mentioned the true higher figure; a search without quotes gives 269 results.
 * I proved all this above. Yet in spite of being proved that you had not looked at all the studies, and there being every reason to in fact look up the study and see how many other studies in fact cited it, you repeat your unfounded and irresponsible assertion.
 * It is also an assertion that is now proven untrue. I have also shown that "Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism, (David M Amodio, John T Jost, Sarah L Master & Cindy M Yee. 9 September 2010, Nature Neuroscience) was cited by 69 other studies.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your personal animus is noted.  And your routine use of "you lied."  Unfortunately for you, saying it a thousand times will never make your charge true.   I went through the 14 pages on Google Scholar for "Ryoky kanai"  without finding what you find.  Your source is not by Kanai.  Did you fail to notice that? That does not make me a liar in any way.   Cheers.   Collect (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get what debate is here. Source #3 from the article: R. Kanai et al. (2011-04-05). "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults". Curr Biol. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21474316. It looks pretty clear to me. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're back where we were. The error in my statements is removed, and yet errors in yours remain and are shown. I don't do apologies, only speedy rectification. And therefore you have a promise that I will continue to show your prevarication and obfuscation as I have here.
 * Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults Ryota Kanai, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth and Geraint Rees. Science Direct - "Available online 7 April 2011." - In this AfD, we give our opinions on this study before scientists have had a chance to. However, there are four other studies in the article that have had time, and have receieved peer review, including "The other study" Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism, cited by 69 other scientific articles.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And, amazingly enough, Google Scholar shows ZERO (as in fewer than 1) placies citing it.  Note that I said that ZERO places cited it, and you accuse me repeatedly of "lying" and "prevarication" and somehow got the idea that 14 pages of Google Scholar results means I did not see 121 of the results!   Again -- 14 times 10 = 140 max results on 14 pages of results from Google Scholar.   And the example you give is not listed as being cited by anyone according to Google Scholar.   Has this finally occurred to you as simple math?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, some general opinions have been given even on the recent Kanai study. Articles in various science news sources have covered this, with comments from others and PhD bylines:   I don't claim these are equivalent to the legendary high quality tertiary review, but given the time frame, it's what we have - besides, how often is the real tertiary review cited more like a monograph in a low-grade journal?  It's evidence of the study's notability.  Of course, everyone has their own take on things (I would suspect that back in the days of COINTELPRO the liberals had the bigger amygdalas...) but the point is, we should print what we know and keep looking to find out more. Wnt (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. WP:NOTNEWS. The article title alone suggest something that the existing small and preliminary studies can at most suggest, but not support. There may be a flash fire in the popular press, but there is no encyclopedic substance to the topic at this moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "NOTNEWS" is always misused in AfDs, without exception. What it actually says is that breaking news "should not be treated differently".  But here it doesn't even apply, since the article cites numerous sources going back for years.  Believe it or not, a couple of recent references are not supposed to make a compelling reason to delete an entire article. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS gives as examples, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". This article is nothing of the kind. Anarchangel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's premature to add this research to an encyclopedia. Collect's reasoning is well founded. Failed MEDRS. Lionel (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about studies going back to 2007. How out of date does Wikipedia science have to be?  Should we revert everything medical to the 1911 EB and lock it down for all time?  Besides, this isn't medical - the article mentions neither a disease nor a treatment! Wnt (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Since no differences have been proved, it would be wrong to have an article that assumes differences exist. TFD (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a valid content issue - the degree of proof should match available sources, expressing room for skepticism. But it is no rationale for deletion. Wnt (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not enough of it out there. We shouldn't have an article on every minor study. On frequently cited studies yet. But that's not the case here (and as a personal opinion, the whole thing is hokey).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are at least seven studies described in the article, and being published in good journals they are not especially minor. Besides, we have articles on every minor Pokemon character - why should it be so taboo to include a little science in the encyclopedia for a change?  As for personal opinions - I believe those are central to this AfD, but I hope they will not be central to its resolution. Wnt (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would further urge people to look at the results for Google Scholar search of conservative liberal fMRI political. As I've commented at the article's talk page, many relevant publications shake out of that which haven't yet been referenced in the article.  I think we've covered the most important studies, but this broader pattern helps demonstrate a broader scientific discussion (though I don't think it should be necessary to do so) Wnt (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - wikipedia is not a platform for publishing or promoting single lines of research that haven't become scientifically established. aprock (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia provides articles on ideas that will never become scientifically established, like "water memory". Wnt (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I generally agree with Colonel and Ihcoyc, though the point about us having an article on every Pokemon is certainly worth consideration.  Swarm   X 06:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pseudoscience nuttery, far too minor and fringe to devote an encyclopedia article to. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These are real scientific journals, which very rarely print pseudoscience. Knee-jerk prejudice is not a valid reason to delete. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience or not, this is evidently not considered to be such by the reputable journals that published it. If you think they're not doing their job properly, you need to take it up with them. If you think the research is flawed, you can submit a paper to a journal. If they publish it this article can discuss the controversy. Are you a medical researcher in a position to pronounce judgement on this research? I thought not. Leave that job to the journals, and let Wikipedia cover what they approve for publication, especially if it attracts so much attention in the mass media, blogosphere, etc. Terminal emulator (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to close this, but I can't bring myself to delete it when I see how weak most of the delete arguments are. I see little disagreement that the subject is both notable and verifiable, so it seems that any other issues can be dealt with via merging, redirecting, or merely editing the article.  MEDRS, if it even applies, and the iffy nature of the science only suggest that we tread lightly; deletion is not required here.  Weak keep or merge if a suitable target can be found.  Though if the article is kept it should also be moved to something like Proposed differences between conservative and liberal brain to better reflect its content.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 05:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Colonel Warden. The research is so shaky as stated and indicated (as well as the differing interpretations of "conservative" and "liberal" across the globe), we only serve to amplify something which may well be poorly researched at best, making it come across as authoritative. I moreover agree with Col. that one wants to research into this, an article on the brain and personality is a much better way to go. –MuZemike 17:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should write open letters to the editorial boards of Nature Neuroscience and Current Biology and ask them to stop publishing research that is so shaky that even though it passes our criterion for reliable sources we can't cite it. --Lambiam 23:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say often, almost anything can be a reliable source for some article. The problem is more often the *misuse* of sources to misrepresent what they can be used for.  These studies do not unequivocally proclaim that conservatives and liberals are guaranteed to have a different brain, and they do not claim to explain political beliefs.  They assert only what they assert.  Taking the sources beyond their ken is what makes a "reliable source" into an unreliable one. -- Avanu (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the sources are misrepresented, that should be fixed by improving the article, not by deleting it. The argument for deletion by MuZemike that I responded to, was, however, not that the sources were misrepresented in our article, but that the content of these sources was unreliable; specifically, that the sources cited in our article reported on research that is "shaky", and "something which may well be poorly researched at best". --Lambiam 12:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * GEEZ LOUISE! Close this. Keep or delete doesn't matter. 68.10.123.77 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Much improved from being on AfD, as Gandalf61 says above. I'm surprised so many people think this should be deleted, when it covers published, peer reviewed research, and appears to be pretty well-sourced throughout. People who dispute the scientific findings should take it up with the researchers, not with Wikipedia. The standard is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia's job is to cover notable research. This topic is clearly notable given its publication in the scientific literature and the interest it has generated in media comment. My only criticism is the odd wording of the title: I would suggest something like "Differences between the brains of liberals and conservatives". Terminal emulator (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lifebaka and Terminal emulator. The extensive coverage indicates that this is notable research, even if other researchers or Wikipedia editors disagree with it for scientific or political reasons. Disagreement with the research ("The research is so shaky", "pseudoscience nuttery") is not a valid reason for deletion; we follow reliable scientific sources and do not make our own assessment of the validity of scientific theories. It is not impossible to write a neutral article about politically contested scientific topics, such as climate change. If there is reliably sourced scientific criticism of this research, this is a reason to mention it in the article, not delete the article. Agreed that the title needs to be changed.   Sandstein   09:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lifebaka. I too came to close the discussion, I too found a consensus to delete in the discussion, and I too, upon reading the article (I like to figure out consensus first, then read the article) felt that the rationales for deletion are unpersuasive. This article will be a pain to maintain, but it really does not run afoul of our policies. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep though the title could perhaps be changed ("theories of the differences..."?), WP:N is clearly met. Basically per the two folks directly above me. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it suits, scientists will study any old crap and newspapers will report any old crap. It is still crap. I have no problem with pseudoscience which doesn't purport to be science, for example who doesn't like ghosts? Is this article verified - most certainly. Is this article notable - not in the slightest. Szzuk (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Attempting to explain differences in political opinion by reference to neurological studies of the brain is a legitimate, if sensational, field of study. I would object to the title on grounds that 'liberal' can mean left (USA, Canada), or centre (UK), or right (Australia), or extreme right (Southern Rhodesia) and to maintain a world-wide view it should really be Differences between the brains of left and right-wing people. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article purports to be a medical article. Arguments that it is really a "political article" do not appear, to me, to be valid rationales for keeping an article which purports to be a medical one.   Clearly the argument here advanced would imply that a "political article" on "race and intelligence" or "sex and intelligence" would be proper, which ArbCom seems to have quite dismissed as a possibility. Collect (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here to close the article, but found that most of the delete rationales were weak or rested on the notion that neuroscience like that mentioned in the article was somehow quackery. I'd prefer if the article were a bit shorter, focused on the discussion about the research (rather than just reiterating claims made in the papers written by the main researchers) and if it had a different title.  But those are all issues which may be fixed through the course of normal editing. Protonk (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: If this research were entirely ex nihil and had no cross-disciplinary support, I would be more wary, but it seems to correspond with work by Jonathan Haidt on the qualitatively different ways in which self-professed liberals and self-professed conservatives process issues of morality. I would remind those unhappy with the current state of the article that an article's quality at any given point in time is not relevant to the question of whether or not that topic ought to be allowed to exist and develop over time. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 16:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Article either needs a committment for improvement or needs to be deleted
At present, the article presents the information as if it were a solid and proven fact that a brain arrangement makes someone 'liberal' or 'conservative', whatever that means exactly. This article is incredibly poor in presentation, as well as in source material. It doesn't provide definitions for what these people believe, only what they identify themselves as. It also doesn't provide any information on why people choose not to participate in political systems. It also might not hold true in societies that don't have a definition of 'liberal' or 'conservative'. In short, it's currently a piece of crap.

If the article were massively reworked to actually present what the researchers have truly discovered (if anything), then it might be reasonable. We really have no idea if this research should be considered a reliable source, but it is probably good enough for Wiki standards, if presented faithfully. I personally have no problem with the idea that there might be brain differences, but as presented currently, it is like asking a horse with 1 leg to ride a bicycle. -- Avanu (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "It doesn't provide definitions for what these people believe, only what they identify themselves as." This sounds to me like a complaint about the research, not Wikipedia's presentation of it. I'm not suggesting it's not a valid complaint by the way, just that it's not something Wikipedia editors can do anything about. The scientific community will have to thrash this out, and Wikipedia will be here to document their debate. If on the other hand you're suggesting that the article misrepresents the research as published in the scientific literature, perhaps you should tag the article with disputed and detail on the talk page where the article's presentation of the research appears to be inaccurate. Once again, problems with the research, allegations that it is pseudoscientific, etc, are not grounds for deletion. Wikipedia is in no position to comment on the validity of scientific findings, beyond neutral reporting of such comment when it is made by the scientific community. Terminal emulator (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The research still needs to meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, but as I often say, anything can be a reliable source for *something*. In this article, my complaint was not centered on how good the research is or is not, but on its treatment and presentation in this article. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.